Ideas

Ideas only exist inside the brain. The only time these ideas exist outside it is when they reside in someone else's brain. The reason most people don't realise that ideas are just mental constructs, is because they live among a group of people with similar ideas. It is quite obvious that if an idea exists in everyone's mind then it must be real. I remember when on our honeymoon we made a stopover at Chamba, a small town in Himachal Pradesh. It is located in a valley and if you ignore the crowd and the chaos, the surrounds and specially the Shiva temple are quite beautiful. While walking back from the temple we stopped over at a shop to buy some shawls for our mothers, and a conversation started with the shop owner who was a lady. She started telling us about how lord Shiva came and resided on the peak near the town once a year and how there was a big fair conducted during this period. Her excitement was quite infectious. Now, no one has ever actually seen lord Shiva sit on that peak and it is just an idea. Even if we consider that lord Shiva represents the cosmic entity not the personified form, then it can be argued that He exists everywhere and not just on that peak. But this idea or folklore was so widely accepted in the town that I believe the woman thought it was real. Even if the woman thought that it was just a myth, the fact that the whole town celebrated the myth shouldn't seem surprising to an outsider.
I once had a discussion with my colleague, who was once a Hindu and has recently adopted Christianity, and as is with any new convert, his beliefs are very strong. Now it is widely accepted that the Bible was written by different people at different times. I just asked him whether it ever occurred to him that the Bible might not actually be God’s own words and be just written by well-intentioned human beings. And he said he believed the Bible is entirely passed on to humans (he uses the word ‘man’) by God himself. Faith and logic are so completely contradictory. Similarly, no one can ever know whether the Koran is Allah's will. And hence the fact that you never see anyone actually sit on the peak, is something no one in the town notices, should not sound out of place even to westerners. After all many of their kin believe that God created light and then He created the sun. The sequence might seem wrong to most people but the belief in a God that takes care of them is so comforting that they choose to ignore these small aberrations.

Pirsig in his book Lila wrote that if we don’t see something it does not just imply that it does not exist, but also that maybe we have never been looking for it. Most people have ideas of how the world is and will only see things that confirm to that idea while totally ignoring things that don't. I have made a journey from being an idealist atheist to a skeptic agnostic who wants to be a believer. Ten years ago I would have dismissed that shop lady as being stupid and superstitious. Today I see her as an equal, just distinct from me. Because I understand that I think in a certain way because I have experienced life in a certain way. Had I been living in that town and selling shawls, maybe I would have thought exactly like that lady. I now understand that what genes we inherit is not in our hands and what experiences we will have is to a large extent beyond our control. In claiming credit for a success or blame for a failure this thought should always be at the back of our mind. And also remember that any idea in our brain is just an idea, how much ever passionate we are about it.

Ideology of blame

I am an avid reader of news on the internet. The advantage you have is that you get to read different points of view. So when there is an India-Pakistan conflict, you can find out what people, journalists and politicians on each side are thinking and saying. What I often find, and this is particularly true about the subcontinent, is that people love to blame their politicians for their woes. There is a five hour a day power cut, we say the politicians only care about their votes and not basic needs of the people. We see filth on the street and we say that if only the politicians spent more money and time in building and maintaining infrastructure rather than filling their pockets. I remember that scene from the movie 'Swades' where Shahrukh as Mohan Bhargav gives a preachy dialogue to the villagers as to how we all keep blaming each other for our woes.

But more than it being a sub-continental trait, I think it is very much a part of the human psyche. You see, if you are not responsible for your problems you don't feel guilty and then you don't have to do anything about it. So when there is a bomb blast in Pakistan, they blame India and India does the same thing. The BJP blames the Congress for creating the religion and caste based politics while the Congress blames the BJP for being a communal party. The funny part is that both blame each other of using community based politics, of course supporting different communities. I wish at least one of them found out that the problem was not which community they support, but rather the whole concept of identity based politics based on religion or caste. It is a bigger problem because as long as you seem to represent your community, the community will vote for you, whether you do any work or not. But here again I am blaming the politicians for being myopic, while least realising that he/she is a politician. If we as voters stopped supporting such politicians, they would not exist.

Let me put it this way. A politician is a politician, not because he has strong ideals or is a good administrator or even has a honest character. He (please pardon me for using 'he', using 'he/she' all the time becomes tiring. Hence to make the better gender not feel left out, 'he' from hence forward refers to both 'he' and 'she') is a politician, because he can get votes. I mean ideals, honesty or good administration skills help, but are not essential. I recently read an article on the Pakistani newspaper site 'Dawn' which said that people vote based on emotion and as long as a politician can appeal to people's emotion, he doesn't need to do more.

I am reminded of our home grown Hitler, Mr Narendra Modi. During his election speeches he would openly talk about how bad the minority community was and how ineffective the Congress government has been. Now, if the minority community is bad, the majority community is good. And also if the minority community is to blame for all the problems, the majority community is exempt from any guilt and hence it makes the majority community feel better. I know, I know, that this feel good thing can't last long, and that is why we talk about the 'anti-incumbency factor' where it is assumed that all parties are equally ineffective in dealing with issues, and hence will loose the election after one term. But to top all that majoritarianism, Mr Modi is a good administrator with a clean character. And so people in a big way vote for him. What we have seen in Gujarat is amazing. The Congress and the old BJP politicians find themselves completely incapable of standing up to Mr Modi. But would Mr Modi have been such a formidable leader had he not appealed to the majority's emotions? I doubt it. I know that most of the rhetoric he makes is bullshit and I believe even he knows it. But I guess what he has understood is that bullshit can win you one election but to stay there you have to make people's lives better. I guess BJP should also realize that opportunism by compromising on ideology is not a long term fix. I talk about BJP only because I think Congress is to a large extent beyond redemption. And I don't even want to talk about the Mayawatis, Laloos, Mulayams, Amar Singhs, Karunanidhis, Jayalalithas, Mamata Banerjees, the list is endless. I have better things to do.

Defence of Skepticism

Most debates, arguments, petty quarrels, fights and even wars are not about something we know for certain. I mean, I haven't heard two people debating on whether the sky is blue on a clear day. It is a definite truth, ofcourse we assume that our senses are feeding us the right information, but we dont have any other choice anyway. Most conflicts are about things we can not know for sure. Whether a patent should be granted or not, and if it should be, within what scope. Whether Kashmir should have been a part of India or Pakistan or should it have been independent. If you know that hindus and muslims can live together, kashmir should be a part of India and the whole creation of Pakistan was a waste of time, effort and lives. If on the other hand you know that hindus and muslims can not live together, then kashmir being a muslim majority state should be a part of pakistan and all the muslims of india should migrate to pakistan. It doesn't end all conflicts because we will still be neighbouring countries but atleast we would have solved that particular conflict. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that we can not know. We can only believe.
And belief is not knowledge. And you will not see someone passionate about his/her knowledge, but definitely about his/her beliefs. It is because unless (almost) everyone accepts the belief, it does not complete its transition to knowledge. And if people do not accept my belief, but actually believe in the opposite, then I am wrong. It is this 'If I am right you are wrong, if you are right I am wrong' concept that makes these beliefs a subject of so much passion. No one wants to be wrong. And the problem is that the most important issues in life haven't still made their transition from beliefs to knowledge. And so we keep fighting.
One way out of this, specially on an individual level, is the so called 'self-belief', where a person believes in his/her own thoughts. The philosophy of life here is - 'I am always right, and you are.... I don't care what you are, as long as you don't tell me that I am wrong. If you do then you are wrong'. It is good for people who are not quite bothered about true knowledge. For them feeling good is more important than being right. And they feel good because they believe that they are right. People hardly realise how much of their thought process is guided by their upbringing and if they were brought up somewhere else they would have been equally passionate about a conflicting idea. What if the whole culture they were brought up in is based on a belief, i.e. an assumption. But that is what most 'socially successful' people do. They make assumptions, form beliefs and move on. Because their objective is not knowledge, their objective is the objective of life, to be successful, in other words to be assert their genes. Isn't it all there is to life. In excelling in studies and work, in getting a good (good is a generic term and does not necessarily mean biologic good) partner, and raising successful kids. And what is this success measured by - 'How much they have been able to assert their genes?'.
The other way is for the knowledge seeker. A person who cares less about the assertion of his gene but more about what is truth. That is the path of skepticism. Start by doubting everything. If skillfully done it can shred any philosophical system to pieces. I know that still they have to start in self belief, but then skepticism comes to the rescue when their philosophy is under attack. When people start doubting your beliefs, you start doubting theirs. In this way you are both equally wrong, and in turn equally right. The philosophy is called 'If you are right then I am right, If I am wrong you are wrong'. There will still be conflicts, because at a certain point many of these beliefs will come face to face, especially when what direction should the world take is determined by what you believe in. Then there will be competition between different peoples. The stronger will survive while the weaker will either accept defeat and adopt the winner's beliefs or fight to annihilation.
But even in this, the winner will still remember. That it is his strength that won him the battle, not his beliefs. The stronger gene asserted itself. The weaker perished. Isn't that what has happenned all through history. The most prevalent beliefs are not because they were better, but because the people who believed in them won.

Thoughts about nothing

Thoughts about nothing
At times you have a lot to write and at times nothing. This passage is a product of an empty mind with lots of time
on hand. I think at times it is better to start with an empty mind and just write. The beginner's luck might produce
something classic.
Anyway, I never rated my writing skills highly. Lately I have been writing a bit more because of the ideas that seem
worth putting on paper. And that sums up my writing ability - full of ideas, lack of literary skill. As they say if
you are a good writer, you can get away with crappy ideas. Something like those prospective GRE applicants wrote in
college mags, where for every third word you had to use a dictionary. And they thought, it made their material worth
reading.
I think I could have had a couple of publications in the college mag, but what I lacked was confidence. Most
importantly I was confused. I didn't know back then that right and wrong are mere conventions. Cannibalism was
acceptable among Fijians while Jains didn't allow eating Ginger. The source of my confusion and often an inferiority
complex was that these people who so confidently flaunted their ideas on life, religion and anything and anyone,
knew something I didn't. When they flaunted their money, looks, health and anything that they thought they had more
than others, I felt lesser. I guess I am equally guilty for doing the same at times. It is just the inherent
competitiveness in humans. As they say, if there is a characteristic in a living being, it is because it helped it
survive/evolve at a certain stage. Competitiveness, must definitely have a use. It is often observed that there is
more competition between men in mixed gender groups as compared to 'only men' groups. The objective is quite
evident.
Look at all the possibilities of competition in our world. We compete in sports for medals, in school for grades, in
work for promotion, in war for national advantage, in art for fame, in business for money, and in politics for
power. For the winners of competitions there are fat wallets and big egos. What is there for the losers? What is the
ratio of winners to losers? Obviously there are many more losers than winners.
Hence the question to ask is 'Is competition good?'. I would like to take the example of communism, which stood for
collective good. Everybody is content with what they have and hence there is no competition. When there is no
competition, efforts are guided to something which is good for everyone. It seems like such an ideal scenario. I
mean with issues like climate change, poverty and overpopulation we should be directing efforts to eradicate them
rather than just try to beat each other.
Then why did it fail? Ofcourse, the US bled it to slow death. But wasn't it perfect? It did achieve amazing things.
USSR for example became the most powerful country and its people had all the necessities that they needed. They were
scientifically more advanced than any other country in the world. But I guess, it went against the very nature of
the human being. In killing competitiveness, it took away the only motivating factor, the winner takes it all.
Competitiveness has two sides like everything else. The carrot of a win (be it for material benefits or ego boosts)
motivates people to perform better. This is known as a 'healthy competition', where people compete to get better at
what they do, with the objective of the group getting better. Then there is the con side - 'unhealthy competition'
where all we do is to try to outdo each other.
Looking at a democratic setup where politicians do good work for the people so that people vote for them and they
win. I guess that is an ideal democratic scenario. But mostly what happens is politicians undermine each other. So rather than improve their credit they try to spoil the opponent's credit. With the only choice for voters left is 'Which is the better of the two evils?' democracy becomes a mockery.
This is where ethics becomes extremely important. Yes, the objective for a politician is to win elections. But what is the use of winning if the society on the whole is worse off. The politician might become richer and more powerful but he will rule over a low quality populace. So though his power will go up among the people he rules, because the power of the people he rules over goes down, his power goes down.
So now we are talking about ethics. But ethics are based on metaphysics. So we are back to square one. I started with my writing ability and reached metaphysics. It seems where ever I start with, it will take me all the way to
metaphysics. So until the metaphysics is sorted out, I can't define ethics. Until I deifne ethics, the question of
'Is competition good?' is meaningless. So is the democracy vs communism conflict. On it also depends my confidence
over my ideas. But to say the least, I have found out that all metaphysics starts with an assumption. So 'only one'
metaphysics is impossible to determine. Also, the correctness and quality of my writing is subjective and can not be
determined for certain. So any doubts about the correctness of my thoughts need not arise at all. Also any
inferiority complex arising from my inadequecies or 'so called' failures has no basis because what is good is again
subjective.
Hence what is important is to have a personal philosophy which comprises - metaphysics and ethics both backed by
solid reason and at times personal choice. Then there should be an acceptance that my philosophy is the best for me
based knowledge and mental capacity I have at this moment. This justifies different people having different
philosophies and they need not affect you. There should be an openness too for accepting new ideas and testing them.
If found to be correct incorporating them in the philosphy. Also there might be a stage where the new ideas get so
conflicting with the philosophy that I need to start from ground up. At such a time a decision needs to be made
about reworking the philosophy. Ofcourse I dont need to stress that the quality of ideas determines the amount of
effort needed to be put in incorporating them into my philosophy.
So the philosophy might not be able to give an absolute right and wrong answer, but atleast tell me what is best. Formation is an easy thing, implementation is difficult. If I can form such a philosophy and live it to the T I think I would consider it to be a TRUE success.

Should knowledge succumb to spirituality?

There was something wrong with the 'Vedanta' I was learning. I knew it, just what didn't come to me until yesterday. It was the inconcievability of the 'Brahman' - which is defined as everything - the cosmic entity. The argument was that consciousness and knowledge are also a part of the Brahman. But so is a thought a part of a human and contains within itself the consciousness and knowledge of the human and itself too.
The reason was that the word 'inconceivable' sounded defeatist and also that it killed human curiosity. It said that all science and all knowledge was a lie and the truth could be gained by only spiritual means. And this I find objectionable. Not because I feel it is conceivable, I don't know about that, but because I find it goes agains my nature.
Everyone has a philosophy. Even the auto driver who writes at the back of his auto 'Meri chalti hai to teri kyon jalti hai?'. That's his philosphy - fight it out and if you are doing well show it. The objective is to find the right philosophy for oneself. And live by it, put it out in the open. May the best philosophy survive. In a dynamic world even Bangladesh can beat Australia, even if it might seem most impossible.
On a different tangent controlling evolution is one big mistake. Allow it a dynamic growth.

I mean good

Peeking at me from those last few pages of the book was my own name. In his expedition to prove quality as the Tao and universe as being inherently moral, Robert Pirsig in his Lila was looking for a similar line of thought in the human history to as far back as he could go. While looking at the meaning of the word 'good' in the thesaurus the Victorian virtue lead him to the Greek arete and he had stopped there in his first book. As he was investigating the true root of the word in this second book, I found myself impatiently shouting out 'It is Rta, it is Rta'. Rta- the vedic term for the moral order of the universe, or in other words whatever is true, or reality in general. Thats where my name comes from - 'RITESH'(Rta - Eesh). He did eventually find it.

Metaphysics of Vedanta

I have almost reached the end of the book 'Vedanta Treatise'. The book has become fascinating in the last section because it has started talking about the metaphysical aspects of the philosophy. I will just write my interpretation of the philosophy, parts read in the last week.
God and RealityThe Brahman (or God, or Supreme Entity or the Self) is incomprehensible. The senses operate within the domain of the Brahman. Brahman is the subject of perception. It can not be made the object of perception. Space, time and causation are characteristics of the Brahman. They too operate within the domain of Brahman. To make it clearer, these three are just manifestations of Brahman and applying them to the Brahman would mean making Brahman the subject. This would mean exiting the domain of Brahman. But these three manifestations will cease to exist outside the Brahman which is a paradox. I always had doubts about the reality we perceive and this has just given a structure to those doubts.
ReincarnationThis section started by talking about death. It said that the Brahman is all-pervading and the body does not disappear after death. The brain is still there. So what disappears is the Mind-Intellect. Or this conditioned consciousness. It goes on to say that if nothing can be destroyed (as per our science) this conditioned consciousness returns as another birth. If it is a self realised person where this conditioned consciousness( or vasanas) do not exist, there is no rebirth and only complete oneness with brahman. It does say that it is just a theory and can not be proved. It can neither be logically deduced without anyone being able to dispute it. And hence it is a theory, an opinion which can become a belief if you accept it.
I have always felt metaphysics is more about what seems more plausible to a person. Vedanta has a lot of concepts which are just amazing, but few which would rather be shelved at the moment. Reincarnation is one such concept. My experience says that life is definitely much beyond the chemical reactions. But accepting the God as being Reality, we put everything inside the boundry of the God (if there is such a boundry). This includes knowlege and perception. Our world is a sum total of object-qualities and subject-thoughts and the underlying reality - the Brahman. Death and reincarnation lie beyond our world and hence we make these half baked theories. But living is within our world boundaries and there are various techniques to live well. We should atleast try to live a good life and leave the metaphysics for later, if such a time ever comes.